Malakai

After reading the bullet "generous taxes" I genuinely had to lookup the definition; much to my surprise I think I can agree with your description. Generous: "larger or more plentiful than is usual or necessary."

I'm moderately okay with the adjustment based on the fact the game crashed as a result; the justification of evening the playing field feels more like an excuse. Additionally, nerfing the effect of having 5+ days worth of spies wiped out in one operation would go further to making this area of the game more competitive and fair than making my counts public ever will.

Really? Are the scraping and API calls really slowing down the server that much? You'd think that if you wanted to make a meaningful contribution to this aspect of the game you would shorten the 15 day waiting game like we've been asking for. The fact that you want to reward laziness bothers me.

I whole heartedly agree with making sure that maxing out on raw lets you max out in production.

Seriously, if ever you were going to listen to us, let it be on this. The banking transactions should use the only characteristic unique to a single nation or alliance, their ID. It would eliminate accidental transfers if a leaders name happens to match a nation name.

While I realize its not your fault, I want to iterate that this one is moronic. Realistically, it needs to be based on something static that can't be used by someone else or changed. We need to change it to nation ID and Alliance ID for bank to bank.

I've refined the costs a bit to make the ROI a little more appealing. The original cost was almost $200M but now I've taken it to under half of that, with some variance obviously for the fluctuations driven by the market. Reducing the costs also makes it more viable for smaller nations. Cost: $35M 3500 Uranium 3500 Gasoline 3500 Steel 3500 Aluminum Total Cost: $82.86M (12/21/2021)

There has to be some benefit to the purchaser or it won't be bought. W could scale the cost and effects to make it better used by raiding nations, or we could adjust the tons it saves based on city count. 1-10 it protects 100 tons per city, 11-20 175 tons per city, and 21+ 250 tons per city? What do you think? The in nation reserves are minimal. In my case it would barely be enough to cover building military units to stand up to a superior force. While they only take a percentage, the advent of slotting and cycling can and has resulted in days to weeks of attacks under total blockade, making it simple to empty the holdings in a nation. This is just a measure to add a bit of a balance back. It won't allow a nation to completely offset the damage being done, but if they wanted to make a last stand or say engage another enemy to help an alliance mate it would allow for it. It could be pie in the sky thinking, but I hope I'm making sense. In regards to the building ideas what if banks were altered to per form that function and this project augmented that effect? Max banks in all cities gets you 50% of the protections and this project secures the other half? That would add another dynamic to warring, because if an attack took out a bank, you lose some coverage and a defeat means you could lose more than you wanted. The exception people make take with this version is in a nation with one city, each bank would be worth 20% of the 50% total. Two cities would diminish that to 10%, and less and less as more cities are built. So in the end smaller nations would have more to lose if attacked vs. larger nations, at least in percentages, larger nations would more than likely have more holdings so maybe that's a bit of balance inherently built in?

I'd like to revisit this. As the API is being more widely used, I think it might be a great idea to give alliances better control over notations to help process transactions. I think if we allowed a text box with a maximum of 15 lines (one per line maxed at 20 characters) would give alliances enough flexibility to allow banking to be streamlined and tracked more simply.

Just like the federal reserve protects the financial system of specific countries, I think we could use the same principals here in the form of a project. Costs: Cash: $100M Uranium: 5000 Gas: 7500 Steel: 5000 Aluminum: 7500 Munitions: 3500 Effect: Reduces amount of resources stolen from alliance bank when your nation is defeated in war by 2%. Protects a limited amount of resources held within your nation from being stolen when defeated in war. Limits are a maximum as follows: Raws: 250 tons per per city Manufactured: 400 tons per city Cash: $600k per city

You should have put more energy into this. Lame dad jokes would have been a better fit, perhaps your the one with his head up his butt.

I like this, however, I think it needs to require at least 32 cities to have been built.

I doubt this very much. Most nations would mutiny. It would also be a flat out pain to track who owned what, who got what, and the remaining balances for all the included nations.

Would a fairer compromise be that once a nation is blockaded their tax rate is frozen?

If y'all come out on top, might be a good idea to make a forced rebranding of your enemies alliance part of your peace terms. As an avid King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table fan I take exception to this perversion of that image and ideals. Given their past deeds and lack of honor, I think something based off Mordred would be more fitting.

What if the default item in the text box were "emergency drop" or something like that which auto-filled with each deposit transaction?

Many alliances rely on bots or spreadsheets to monitor and track their banking info. The bane of their existence is a lack of consistency. I'd like to suggest that the following changes be implemented as soon as possible. It will not effect the game in a grand scale, but it will enable ALL alliances to effect as much automated tracking as their leadership or skill allows. Short Term: Make the transaction note box a required element for both deposits and withdrawals. Long Term: Transition this box to a drop down menu, populated by a list of accepted transaction codes or references, defined by the alliance leadership via a text box under the alliance settings. After reviewing some of the most common notes and activities, I suggest the list be limited to 15 unique identifiers.

Econ staff are generally those who have earned the most respect and trust. A well targeted series of attacks would force alliances to use members they may fight with, but have not earned the trust to have a key to the treasury. This would cause internal dissention, open alliances to risk of thievery, and incite chaos in the game if it ever took root. This idea needs to die. Either through disinterest or execution on the gallows.

I think it would be better refined as an upgrade for alliances. Pay a one time fee of 2-4 credits to allow an alliance to give specialized awards. Additionally these awards need to be given their own place, right under the game awards. I also think there needs to be limits, both in their size and quantity. All things should be equitable to those applied to the in game awards.

I got to thinking about the effect this might have on the development of nations as a whole. Does anyone feel that it will slow things down? I know most people are rolling their eyes as they click the downvote button, but hear me out. Who is going to want to make the first move to buy anything if the next guy gets it for a lower price? Large nations already pay a higher price for their development with each new city. Smaller nations already (in most alliances) get built up to a strong mid range nation with grants from taxes on those same nations. To me it seems this would unduly burden larger nations who have already gone through the process of building up and learning the game to get where they are.

I like the notion, but I'm not sure how practical it will be.

It's been a while since I found a good source of manure for my garden that doesn't cost a fortune. You seem to exude it on command and in vast quantities. If you live in or near a heavily agronomic community you could make a fortune.

The Leaky Cauldron

If possible I think it would be good to allow a custom entry of the length of the uncancelable nonaggression pact. All of those involved enter a time frame using days instead of turns, if all match, then no nation in any alliance in the agreement can violate it.

You took what wasn’t yours and received a standard punitive retaliatory measure used throughout Orbis. Your first infraction during your initial Arrgh membership can (and most likely has been) overlooked, but repeat offenses by your own admission diminishes your argument. The ignorance of not checking your targets is a little comical, but Adrienne is well known for her mercy. The fact you rejected the terms means you were definitely not entitled to any form of leniency as you had already received and abandoned it. Your plight is self induced and your anger is misplaced. There is more to life that sitting in the corner brooding about what may have been. Sound the horn. Sharpen the blades. Issue the orders. Perhaps if you can satisfy this blood lust so you can finally move past it and get on with your life.